In August, 1980 a rare serotype S. zanzibar was isolated in the North of Scotland from a man home on leave from Malaysia, whence he returned in November having been bacteriologically negative 2 months previously. In December however, S. zanzibar was isolated from a bulk milk sample taken at a nearby dairy farm. No illness occurred among milking cows which had been brought inside from pasture in mid-October. Since 1972 a variety of different salmonella serotypes had been identified in cattle, milk and other samples at this farm, with seagulls being implicated as the vector transmitting infection from the sewage of a local town on to farmland and an adjacent loch. Although water from this source has not been used in recent years for drinking by cattle, it is utilized for washing floors within the dairy premises. Since 1979, following an outbreak affecting consumers, all milk produced at the farm has been pasteurized.
Science is among humanity's greatest achievements, yet scientific censorship is rarely studied empirically. We explore the social, psychological, and institutional causes and consequences of scientific censorship (defined as actions aimed at obstructing particular scientific ideas from reaching an audience for reasons other than low scientific quality). Popular narratives suggest that scientific censorship is driven by authoritarian officials with dark motives, such as dogmatism and intolerance. Our analysis suggests that scientific censorship is often driven by scientists, who are primarily motivated by self-protection, benevolence toward peer scholars, and prosocial concerns for the well-being of human social groups. This perspective helps explain both recent findings on scientific censorship and recent changes to scientific institutions, such as the use of harm-based criteria to evaluate research. We discuss unknowns surrounding the consequences of censorship and provide recommendations for improving transparency and accountability in scientific decision-making to enable the exploration of these unknowns. The benefits of censorship may sometimes outweigh costs. However, until costs and benefits are examined empirically, scholars on opposing sides of ongoing debates are left to quarrel based on competing values, assumptions, and intuitions.